Featured Authors

Deborah Haarsma serves as the President of BioLogos, a position she has held since January 2013. Previously, she served as professor and chair in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

N.T. Wright is a leading biblical scholar, former Bishop of Durham in the Church of England, and current Research Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at St. Mary's College in the University of St. Andrews.

Today we begin an interview with C. John Collins, Professor of Old Testament at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis. “Jack” (as he is known informally) defends the Old Earth Creation view in the book. Essentially he argues that the Bible as a whole—as well as the common human experience—demands a view of Adam and Eve as real historical people through whom sin entered the world (i.e., there is also a historical Fall). Collins is well aware of the scientific evidences that stand in tension with his theological convictions, but he finds enough latitude in interpreting those evidences such that they can fit with the “Big Story” of humanity we find in Scripture.

There is much overlap between Collins’ and Walton’s views. Both have a historical Adam. But contrary to Walton, Collins insists that Adam must be at the headwaters of the human race. It is worth reading their critiques of each other’s positions in the book. Following is Collins’ summary of his position, and then the first part of the interview.

I argue that the best way to account for the biblical presentation of human life is to understand that Adam and Eve were both real persons at the headwaters of humankind. By “biblical presentation” I refer not only to the story in Genesis and the biblical passages that refer to it, but also to the larger biblical story line, which deals with God’s good creation invaded by sin, for which God has a redemptive plan; of Israel’s calling to be a light to the nations; and of the church’s prospect of successfully bringing God’s light to the whole world. That story concerns the unique role and dignity of the human race, which is a matter of daily experience for everyone: All people yearn for God and need him, must depend on him to deal with their sinfulness, and crave a wholesome community for their lives to flourish.

I argue that the nature of the biblical material should keep us from being too literalistic in our reading of Adam and Eve, leaving room for an Earth that is not young, but that the biblical material along with good critical thinking provides certain freedoms and limitations for connecting the Bible’s creation account to a scientific and historical account of human origins (p. 143).

Jim Stump: Your reading of Genesis 1-11 is quite sophisticated in a literary sense. You see the stories in a genre with other ancient Near Eastern literature, which might be said to have a historical core but are also packed with imagery and symbolism. As such you say, “no one expected the stories to be read in a thoroughly literalistic fashion” (p. 155). What elements of the creation accounts do you not take to be literal descriptions of historical events?

Jack Collins: Well, first, thanks for the compliment! I have developed my literary methodology by combining ideas from textlinguistics and speech act theory, literary criticism (e.g., C.S. Lewis, Mary Louise Pratt, Meir Sternberg, and Phil Long), and Biblical theology (e.g., N.T. Wright, Michael Williams, and Christopher Wright), together with my own reflections as a grammarian and lexicographer (mentored by one of the best, Alan Millard).

I would say that the creation account in Genesis refers to actual persons, things, and events, in ways that strike the imagination. So I take the six days of Genesis 1 as “God’s workdays” — God is presented as if he were a workman going through his work week. The way that God “rested” (Gen. 2:2–3) or “was refreshed” (Exod. 31:17) on his Sabbath is indicator enough that the description is analogical and not “literal.” Further, to the extent that the “expanse” is portrayed as something solid (as in the “firmament” of the King James Version), it is not a scientific description of the sky, but rather a pictorial one: it enables us to imagine the scene. The days of Genesis 1 march on in a clear sequence; but the sequence itself may well be part of the literary portrayal, so we should sit lightly on it. In general, the account says little or nothing about processes by which things took their shape: this is not to exclude the possibility of processes, nor even to make our scientific curiosity about them impious, but rather to sketch the portrait of a creation expressive of and obedient to God’s wishes.

And when in Genesis 2:7 God “forms” the man using dust, we don’t have to read that as a “straightforward” description of the process, especially since a deity acting like a potter in forming a man is a motif found elsewhere in the ancient world. (Of course that doesn’t mean that it can’t be what it looked like: my point is that detailing the procedure isn’t what the writer was aiming at.)

These are some examples. I consider the imagistic form to be as much a part of God’s inspiration as the content. The great virtue of the pictorial approach that Genesis has employed is that it enables us to imagine the events and to enjoy them; the goal of the creation story in Genesis is, besides getting the Big Story under way by narrating its beginning, to celebrate the creation as God’s achievement, so that human beings will honor God, and like and use and care for his stuff responsibly. Israel, the first audience, was God’s new start on humankind, and their life in the Land was particularly intended to show forth this purpose.

JS: Once you allow “historical” accounts to have non-literal elements to them, what are the criteria by which you determine the “historical core”? Is it legitimate to affirm the Genesis accounts as historical if we acknowledge that God really did create the heavens and the earth and all the life, but we don’t think that these accounts give the details of how or when that happened?

JC: JC: Fair question, and it’s important not to be arbitrary. I would consider the events in light of their place in the over-arching storyline of the Bible. Of course the world in which we live, and whether it came about by God’s intention or by some other factors, are relevant at all stages of that storyline! So Genesis is concerned to clarify that the world we know is just the right kind of place for our little stories to take place in.

In addition, the way that the rest of the Bible refers to the persons and events of Genesis is good guidance as to the importance of those persons and events to the shape of the Big Story. No Biblical author makes anything, so far as I know, of most of the details. Nevertheless, the persons of Adam and Eve do play a bigrole in the rest of the Biblical Story — and this, not so much as individuals who lived, but as actors whose disobedience affected everyone else, which thus led to the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. As I’ve indicated in the book, I think it’s proper to entertain some leeway on just what it means that Adam and Eve were “at the headwaters” of humankind, and just how long ago that was. Hence, for example, thediscussion that Tim Keller gives in his white paper on the BioLogos site fits within what seem to me to be reasonable bounds.

In Genesis 3 the temptation comes through a conversation between the woman and a talking snake. The crucial thing here is not the literality of the description, but rather the referentiality of it. That is, a good literary reading of the conversation will conclude that the snake is the mouthpiece for an Evil Power, because snakes don’t talk, and Israelites knew that; and because what it says is pure evil. But whether that Evil Power used a “literal” snake and spoke through it is not important, except insofar as it enables us all to envision the scene. We must come away feeling the tragic loss this involved for all humankind, so that we are open to, and compliant with, whatever scheme God has for remedying our predicament.

Notes

Citations

Stump, J. (2014, April 14). Interpreting Adam: An Interview with Jack Collins, Part 1Retrieved March 19, 2018, from /blogs/jim-stump-faith-and-science-seeking-understanding/interpreting-adam-an-interview-with-jack-collins-part-1

About the Author

Jim Stump is Senior Editor at BioLogos. As such he oversees the development of new content and curates existing content for the website and print materials. Jim has a PhD in philosophy from Boston University and was formerly a philosophy professor and academic administrator. He has authored Science and Christianity: An Introduction to the Issues (Wiley-Blackwell, 2017) and edited Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design (Zondervan 2017). Other books he has co-authored or co-edited include: Christian Thought: A Historical Introduction (Routledge, 2010, 2016), The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity (Wiley-Blackwell, 2012), How I Changed My Mind About Evolution (InterVarsity, 2016), and Old Earth or Evolutionary Creation: Discussing Origins with Reasons to Believe and BioLogos (InterVarsity, 2017).

"What kind of evidence would somebody need to have in order to be rationally compelled to say that an event was a miracle? That person would have to know that this event could not possibly be explained by future science. But not only is such a belief unwarranted, it’s also bad for future science to believe it."

These provocative words are written by Princeton philosopher Hans Halvorson (a Christian), in an article that itself provoked some good discussion when we posted it last week.

Check out the full article (link in comments), and then respond to the quote above. Does calling something a "miracle" put it in danger of being debunked by future scientific advances? Is there a different way of thinking about the concept of a miracle, that might satisfy his concerns? Feel free to discuss below. ... See moreSee less

Hard for me to see that the Incarnation is not a miracle. For others , God could be working on a quantum level?? But does the latter fall into”God of the Gaps?”

5 hours ago · 1

Amen🌀 Jesus doesn't care about Alabama Crimson Tide 🏈 football. Instead, He loves 🌀 Spring and the start of ⚾ baseball season. That's why He started His own story, "In the Big inning..." Just watch 🌀 His wind-up! You need to start reading your 📖 Bible!

3 hours ago

One thing for sure, it is more a philosophical question than a religious one.

7 hours ago · 2

Great article. In answer to you question about a different way of thinking about miracles that would "satisfy his concern", to me it would make sense to explain a miracle in terms of something that everyone (religious and non-religious alike) would have no explanation for, given our current understanding of science.

Science will never describe the full expanse of reality. Science is not geared to that end. This is basic knowledge.
Reason is the handmaiden of faith because faith takes us where reason cannot go. As such, the only thing that will ever describe the fill expanse of reality is faith supernaturally given by God, i.e. God graciously enlightening the intellect. Reason gives way to faith because reason is limited in its capacity to describe reality.
This is not to say reason is not essential. It is the handmaiden of faith because it is a true and good servant to faith. As such faith and reason never contradict, but faith does transcend reason.

10 hours ago · 5

I'm tired of these types of questions constantly being proposed. It was not a scientist who discovered that dead human beings do not rise from the dead (which is different than Jesus resurrection) it was simple human experience. Therefore, the question is rather silly to ask. My first reply is to ask: who cares if Jesus resurrection contradicts science? My second reply is to make the observation that this question is phrased in such a way that science is presupposed as the final arbiter of truth claims like the resurrection of Jesus. Thirdly, how exactly could scientists study the resurrection of Jesus? Scripture tells us that God raised Jesus from the dead. Can science study this claim? Fourth, it would be one thing to subject the resurrection to some sort of scientific investigation ( I know not what or how) and a completely different thing to study what the resurrection of Jesus means for me or you personally. It seems Biologos is in need of some good theologians and philosophers to add to this conversation. Finally, this question smacks of a form of Evidentialism that would make faith subject to the vagarities of evidence. In the end I have to affirm that it matters little to me if the resurrection of Jesus did contradict science. On another note, one could ask: whose "science" and which scientists?

3 hours ago · 1

Exactly so.

11 hours ago · 1

Mmmmmm, I would say that a resurrection is contradictory to observed evidence, but that's fine. A God that is truly supernatural would act supernaturally at times. Although, I suppose God could whip up a truly natural Star Trek hypospray to overcome the decay process and relaunch the body's systems.